[originldirgibl]

It didn't. I assume it took them three days to decide whether or not they could establish plausible deniability.

Then the cell phone video of the second missile hitting the plane came out. It's easy to own up to mistakes when your hand is forced.

[solarkraft]

Does Russia have plausible deniability in the case of MH17?

[moltar]

Russia was never allowed to be part of investigation and offered to help with some data and was rejected.

Why would investigators reject possibly relevant data? It’s like if new evidence was brought up in court, but the judge would say “nah, thank you. We got enough. We know anyway who did it.”

Malaysia, who’s airline was shot, was also not allowed to participate in the investigation. I wonder why.

[synthc]

Because they could spread misinformation or selectively disclose some information while withholding information that could harm them. It makes a ton of sense to not let the suspected parties join the investigation.

[moltar]

Well, you could make the same argument in court. Why allow defence to present their side of story? What if they lie and spread misinformation. Better not listen to them and just make a judgement without them.

By not allowing Russia to present their story because “what if” you are preemptively saying that they are guilty.

Why was Ukraine allowed to participate?